VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 96
Thread
  1. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Nightmare
    Prices on SD media are dropping like a rock. Last night I purchased

    8GB SDHC - $18.99 after rebate
    16 GB SDHC - $39.99 after rebate

    8GB = 1 HR at max quality

    I can burn M2T files to DVDs for storage (4.7 GB / 30 minutes at a time). Single Layer DVDs are almost free after rebates. Once Blu-Ray burners come down in price I can store over 1 hr at a time.
    You'll need a laptop+external drive if you take it on vacation.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SCDVD
    Originally Posted by Nightmare
    The review at www.camcorderinfo.com for the JVC Everio GZ-HD40

    http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Everio-GZ-HD40-Camcorder-Review-35331.htm

    No Optical Image Stabilization
    There are quite a few Hard Disc based camcorders. The point was there aren't any hard disc HDV camcorders. HDV is still the best choice for editing.
    It looks like the JVC GZ-HD40 is a hard disk HDV camcorder, albeit slightly "weird" formula. I took the sample files from the camera (not the AVCHD, but the .TOD HD mpeg2 format), and "cleaned" them with ffmpeg, and the 1440 version appears to be identical to HDV. The other was 1920x1080. I could edit both (cleaned mpeg2 versions) in Womble mpeg video wizard dvd, and combine them with other HDV (m2t) sample files. The 1440 (HDV) didn't require any re-encoding to combine.

    I understand some people love the DV tape experience, but I personally won't buy into them. For me, this camera appears to give the HDV without the tapes. Other than it being a JVC (and their reputation) and lack of optical image stabilization, I'm highly tempted by the GZ-HD40. It even goes one better than HDV by giving 1980x1080 square pixels as a recording option, at 26.6 mb/sec mpeg2.

    Any thoughts? Am I missing something big?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Camcorder Info has a comprehensive review of theJVC-GZ-HD40 here

    http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Everio-GZ-HD40-Camcorder-Review-35331.htm
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I was a little confused by the review. The review is positive:

    While it certainly doesn't simplify operation for the average consumer, it opens up a whole new world of compatibility with editing systems.

    It's not a perfect camcorder, but it's a damn fine one if you ask us. There's no doubt that it produces the best looking video we've seen from an Everio so far. The low light performance, multiple compression options, manual controls, and massive capacity make the GZ-HD40 a strong contender against the Canon HF10 and Sony HDR-SR11
    However, the site doesn't seem to understand the challenges of AVCHD/really likes AVCHD. [This is also from the GZ-HD6 review]:

    First, the obstacles: JVC has chosen the MPEG-2 TS format over the competing AVCHD format, the latter being clearly more popular and therefore more commonly compatible with editing software.

    JVC has finally joined the kids at the popular table by allowing the camcorder to record in AVCHD, while maintaining the ability to record in MPEG-2 TS.
    That seems weird--isn't HDV really is easier to edit than AVCHD (due to the lower compression, not requiring as much CPU effort to display, and ability to natively edit) ? It seems much easier to me.

    They like the GZ-HD40 like a basketball coach likes a tall dwarf--better than the other Everio camcorders but no place for it compared to the Canon HF10/HF100 or Sony HDR-SR11.

    Why is there no interest in tapeless HDV/mpeg2? Has the marketing of AVCHD won, or is it a better option? [My personal bias is that tapeless HDV is pretty cool at this price, but I'm not sure what I'm missing.]

    Thanks,
    Tim
    Quote Quote  
  5. mass storage is missing. tapes have been a pretty ideal medium for quite a while and are still. at about $2 for 13GB, and small in size they are hard to beat. store the tape and you will always have your original footage. their only drawback is the real time transfer to computer.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by tmw
    Why is there no interest in tapeless HDV/mpeg2? Has the marketing of AVCHD won, or is it a better option? [My personal bias is that tapeless HDV is pretty cool at this price, but I'm not sure what I'm missing.]

    Thanks,
    Tim
    I prefer HDV as well. My cameras are all Mini DV and I agree that tape handling can be a pain in the butt sometimes. AVCHD can be very processor intensive but there is an even worse problem and that is insufficient bit rate. The compression artifacts that people complain about with AVCHD are one of the problems caused by insufficient bit rate. The camera manufacturers are trying to develop "better" codecs to improve this but in my opinion they are beating their heads against the wall with this. I can only think of two reasons that the bit rate is kept too low. One is to keep the hardware cost down because the consumer camcorder market is very price competitive. The other is a marketing positing game. They don't want AVCHD to overlap the formats used in professional cameras. I think the end result of this is that they have boxed themselves in.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The bitrate on the newer AVCHD cameras (Canon HG20, HG21) has gone up to 25Mbps, but I do agree on the hassle factor of AVCHD. The average consumer doesn't realize that they'll need a faster processor and updated software to process the footage.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    If you do decide to buy an AVCHD camcorder, it's a good idea to verify that the editing software that you intend to use is compatible with the AVCHD video from the camera you intend to buy. The AVCHD formats from the various camera manufacturers are not universally compatible with specific editing software. You should also plan on using a "muscle" processor to handle the demands of editing AVCHD. The bare minimum should be a Quadcore Q6600 or better yet, the newer Intel Core i7 processor. You can't have too much computer speed for AVCHD editing.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    HDV makes more sense and is higher quality for professional style workflow. The JVC HD40 did fill the hole for an MPeg2 HDD camcorder but the cam section didn't measured up per Camcorderinfo.com.

    HDV has a path up through pro XDCAM-EX/HD. XDCAM allows variable bit rates 16-35Mb/s and records MPeg2 to flash memory or Blu_Ray disk. HDV has fixed bit rate at 25Mb/s. I expect Sony's plan is to bring XDCAM down for the serious prosumer with an entry XDCAM model that will replace prosumer HDV.

    According to Camcorderinfo, HDV still looks better first generation vs. latest AVCHD but the gap is closing. MPeg2 recodes much better than AVCHD so is more appropriate for editing and professional workflows. Most consumer edit packages simply convert AVCHD to MPeg2 on import which is an extra recode in the path.

    AVCHD quality can be maintained if one cut edits on I frames or uses Digital Intermediate formats. In time computers will get more powerful to make native H.264 editing more tolerable. One strategy may be inclusion of hardware codecs.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks, these are good points. I am telling myself that poor rendering in a friendly format is worse than great rendering in a difficult format. However, my footage is mainly home videos, so it isn't that great to begin with.

    I do still think the GZ-HD40 sounds pretty cool (even if not the best rendering), but I'll continue to sleep on it for a little bit.
    Thanks,
    Tim
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Please,

    Is there as NOW (jan 09) a sw that allows AVCHD editing without reencoding at all ? Premiere Pro CS4 ? Any other cheaper one ?

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    Please,

    Is there as NOW (jan 09) a sw that allows AVCHD editing without reencoding at all ? Premiere Pro CS4 ? Any other cheaper one ?

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    What is new is a less expensive version of Cineform digital intermediate called NeoScene for $129. That is what you should use with Premiere Pro CS4.
    http://www.cineform.com/products/NeoScene.htm

    Otherwise for no recode, just cut on I frames (about a half second increment).
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    Please,

    Is there as NOW (jan 09) a sw that allows AVCHD editing without reencoding at all ? Premiere Pro CS4 ? Any other cheaper one ?

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    I haven't tried it, but Transport Stream Packet Editor appears to work with AVCHD natively.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by edDV
    What is new is a less expensive version of Cineform digital intermediate called NeoScene for $129. That is what you should use with Premiere Pro CS4.
    http://www.cineform.com/products/NeoScene.htm
    Thanks edDV but.....doesn't CS4 edit AVCHD NATIVELY ?? That's what I understood by reading the Adobe pages:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/supportedformats.html

    and specially:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/pdfs/prempro_cs4_formatguide.pdf

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    Originally Posted by edDV
    What is new is a less expensive version of Cineform digital intermediate called NeoScene for $129. That is what you should use with Premiere Pro CS4.
    http://www.cineform.com/products/NeoScene.htm
    Thanks edDV but.....doesn't CS4 edit AVCHD NATIVELY ?? That's what I understood by reading the Adobe pages:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/supportedformats.html

    and specially:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/pdfs/prempro_cs4_formatguide.pdf

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    Yes but it is a slow pig on the timeline and very frustrating even with a fast Core2Duo. Your Pentium D 930 would be far worse*. As said above, most convert to MPeg2 or HDV to get a responsive timeline. The better and less lossy solution is Cineform digital intermediate.


    * Unless you are editing an uncompressed timeline with RAID storage.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    +1 ^ NeoScene
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks to edDV and all that replied,

    I know that this subject is long, but, in a single approach, would AVCHD in a year or two kill HDV ?

    I still have a MiniDV camera, but now, like 99% in the world, it's time to upgrade......since I could use PP and Encore CS4 to edit and author my HD movies, it'd be OK.

    Thanks,

    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    ...would AVCHD in a year or two kill HDV ?
    AVCHD works now as a consumer flash media format because flash media is expensive and most consumers don't edit. As flash media costs drop maybe lower compressed modes will allow easier software decoding. Current AVCHD could work better for native editing when CPUs go 8-16 core. So, GOP based h.264 in some form will survive as a consumer format.

    Pro workflow favors lower compressed acquisition formats because editing and filtering are expected. XDCAM-EX is a superset of HDV with lower compression options 18 to 50 Mb/s MPeg2 vs. 25Mb/s fixed for HDV*. I see HDV being replaced by XDCAM-EX at the Prosumer level including the addition of flash media recording. DV tape, while inexpensive, is only practical at the 25Mb/s rate.

    Above that you have AVCIntra which records intact frames with h.264 intraframe compression. Bit rates are 50Mb/s or 100Mb/s.


    Originally Posted by Zetti
    I still have a MiniDV camera, but now, like 99% in the world, it's time to upgrade......since I could use PP and Encore CS4 to edit and author my HD movies, it'd be OK.
    If you are going to use the CS4 suite, I suggest you add the Cineform NeoScene codec when you go HD. It will work well with HDV, XDCAM or AVCHD.


    * The HDV format was a spin-off from the pro XDCAM-HD project back around 2003.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    I know that this subject is long, but, in a single approach, would AVCHD in a year or two kill HDV ?
    I'm probably the dumbest person replying, but I'd bet it does. MPEG2 (HDV) took over for DV. DV was superior for editing b/c it had only intra-frame and no inter-frame compression. However, MPEG2 can just capture so much more detail per bit that it prevailed (via HDV).

    Seriously, five years ago you could count on one hand the number of software programs that worked with MPEG2 natively.

    AVCHD requires more processor support (more complex algorithym) than MPEG2, hence many people state you need an upgraded computer to play it. Pet bit of video, AVCHD has the best detail. AVCHD also has the marketing down, even if it's not technically all that over MPEG2 of same bit-rate and resolution.

    So, I wouldn't bet my life savings, but I would wager a frosty beverage that AVCHD has much longer legs than HDV today--even though the smart people here (and they are extremely knowledgable and competent) might say otherwise.

    I'd also venture that quality glass and sensors are more important than the format it records. It's like how a 4 mega-pixel camera with a huge sensor and nice glass can take better pictures than a 16 megapixel camera phone. The lighting, lens, composition, stabilization, and other factors are just much more impactful on the final product than if it recorded in HDV or AVCHD.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by tmw
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    I know that this subject is long, but, in a single approach, would AVCHD in a year or two kill HDV ?
    ...
    AVCHD requires more processor support (more complex algorithym) than MPEG2, hence many people state you need an upgraded computer to play it. Pet bit of video, AVCHD has the best detail. AVCHD also has the marketing down, even if it's not technically all that over MPEG2 of same bit-rate and resolution.

    So, I wouldn't bet my life savings, but I would wager a frosty beverage that AVCHD has much longer legs than HDV today--even though the smart people here (and they are extremely knowledgable and competent) might say otherwise.
    My counter argument to h.264 for acquisition is twofold. First h.264 was designed as a distribution rather than an acquisition format. As such it has potential to achieve higher quality encoding at a given bit rate but h.264 was not optimized for repeated recode. The same used to be said about MPeg2 in the mid 90's but Sony and others (especially the ATSC/DVB projects) have put much research into MPeg2 codecs that recode with very good quality (e.g. IMX and XDCAM/HDV recording formats and MPeg_TS broadcasting standards). The higher end production formats use intraframe only compression (e.g. DVCPro, DigiBeta, HDCAM, AVC-Intra) but MPeg2 is holding up well for mid level broadcasting where several recodes can happen between acquisition and home display.

    Second, current side by side comparisons of similar HDV vs. AVCHD camcorders (e.g. the Canon HV20/30 vs HF/HG series) still show first generation picture quality advantage to MPeg2 chipsets even at similar 20-25Mb/s bitrates. This is aside from the recode advantages for MPeg2. This reflects the current state of the art for consumer level real time hardware h.264 encoding chips which is likely to improve over the years.

    The reason AVCHD is accepted at the consumer level is that market will trade picture quality for convenience and initial investment cost. AVC h.264 @ 6-15 Mb/s was needed to fit acceptable recording minutes into 2nd speed level flash ram media. As flash RAM speeds and capacities improve, higher bit rates can be used to get better picture quality but like VHS history, the consumer is likely to use the lower bit rates to extend recording minutes.

    The prosumer segment is more likely to seek higher acquisition quality and will have a production workflow in mind when selecting a camcorder format. This segment struggles with the cost of flash media for larger projects and the realities of editing AVCHD. DV tape is currently far cheaper and provides an instant backup. So for people doing work today, HDV is still the preferred acquisition format. Sony can provide an MPeg2 flash ram solution by moving the XDCAM-EX format down into the $2K range replacing HDV for the quality conscious prosumer market.

    I see HDV just as a version of XDCAM optimized for DV tape. The XDCAM format can cover the 15-50 Mb/s range with variable quality settings.

    Over time, flash RAM costs will come down and replace tape. Digital intermediate work flows will solve many of the AVCHD editing issues. New AVCHD camcorder chipsets will improve acquisition quality. At the same time the higher end AVC-Intra format will push MPeg2 XDCAM from the high end. I think that means Sony will be fighting back with lower cost XDCAM-EX products for the prosumer to TV news/reality segments.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Dear edDV and all,

    I hadn't seen your reply, now I got it, thanks so much. My decision now is to wait an extra year and then I'll probably go the AVCHD way, so my current Mini-DV camera will have an extra life

    Zetti

    Originally Posted by edDV
    Originally Posted by tmw
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    I know that this subject is long, but, in a single approach, would AVCHD in a year or two kill HDV ?
    ...
    AVCHD requires more processor support (more complex algorithym) than MPEG2, hence many people state you need an upgraded computer to play it. Pet bit of video, AVCHD has the best detail. AVCHD also has the marketing down, even if it's not technically all that over MPEG2 of same bit-rate and resolution.

    So, I wouldn't bet my life savings, but I would wager a frosty beverage that AVCHD has much longer legs than HDV today--even though the smart people here (and they are extremely knowledgable and competent) might say otherwise.
    My counter argument to h.264 for acquisition is twofold. First h.264 was designed as a distribution rather than an acquisition format. As such it has potential to achieve higher quality encoding at a given bit rate but h.264 was not optimized for repeated recode. The same used to be said about MPeg2 in the mid 90's but Sony and others (especially the ATSC/DVB projects) have put much research into MPeg2 codecs that recode with very good quality (e.g. IMX and XDCAM/HDV recording formats and MPeg_TS broadcasting standards). The higher end production formats use intraframe only compression (e.g. DVCPro, DigiBeta, HDCAM, AVC-Intra) but MPeg2 is holding up well for mid level broadcasting where several recodes can happen between acquisition and home display.

    Second, current side by side comparisons of similar HDV vs. AVCHD camcorders (e.g. the Canon HV20/30 vs HF/HG series) still show first generation picture quality advantage to MPeg2 chipsets even at similar 20-25Mb/s bitrates. This is aside from the recode advantages for MPeg2. This reflects the current state of the art for consumer level real time hardware h.264 encoding chips which is likely to improve over the years.

    The reason AVCHD is accepted at the consumer level is that market will trade picture quality for convenience and initial investment cost. AVC h.264 @ 6-15 Mb/s was needed to fit acceptable recording minutes into 2nd speed level flash ram media. As flash RAM speeds and capacities improve, higher bit rates can be used to get better picture quality but like VHS history, the consumer is likely to use the lower bit rates to extend recording minutes.

    The prosumer segment is more likely to seek higher acquisition quality and will have a production workflow in mind when selecting a camcorder format. This segment struggles with the cost of flash media for larger projects and the realities of editing AVCHD. DV tape is currently far cheaper and provides an instant backup. So for people doing work today, HDV is still the preferred acquisition format. Sony can provide an MPeg2 flash ram solution by moving the XDCAM-EX format down into the $2K range replacing HDV for the quality conscious prosumer market.

    I see HDV just as a version of XDCAM optimized for DV tape. The XDCAM format can cover the 15-50 Mb/s range with variable quality settings.

    Over time, flash RAM costs will come down and replace tape. Digital intermediate work flows will solve many of the AVCHD editing issues. New AVCHD camcorder chipsets will improve acquisition quality. At the same time the higher end AVC-Intra format will push MPeg2 XDCAM from the high end. I think that means Sony will be fighting back with lower cost XDCAM-EX products for the prosumer to TV news/reality segments.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Wow, I'm surprised you would go with AVCHD after all the info that's been given. It will take additional expenses beside the camcorder alone to work with that format. You'll need a new computer, new software, etc. AVC-Intra is an emerging pro format that will cost big bucks.

    The death of HDV is not as imminent as you may think. Further development of AVCHD-friendly editing software may slow with the economy.
    Quote Quote  
  23. I never seen a pro using AVCHD cam
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member 2Bdecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    I have young children. They change a lot year by year. Still, I waited until my SD camcorder broke before buying an HD one. I now regret only having SD for those years!

    SD on an HDTV:
    http://www.david.robinson.org/pics/sdhd.jpg

    HD on an HDTV:
    http://www.david.robinson.org/pics/hd.jpg

    What do you want your memories to look like?


    I also regret not having a working SD camcorder now to dub all my old tapes onto my PC. (I didn't do them all when they were first filmed). It seems a waste to wear out an HV20 to do the job. So I'll probably buy another SD camcorder (or, more likely, get my old one fixed) anyway!

    If I'd retired it a year earlier, it would probably still work now, and I'd have a year's extra HD footage.

    Cheers,
    David.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Indeed, AVCHD is not a pro format. The emerging AVC-Intra variation, however, is a different beast that Panasonic is trying to promote as a "pro" format. Waste of time, methinks.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,

    Well, I'll need a new computer anyway, regardless footage stuff, and with Neoscene things may not go so bad.
    Considering all the information that's been given, I realized that HDV is more or less mature already, and AVCHD is a young baby....

    English is not my mother tongue, so all the technical writing seems a bit confusing for me sometimes, but that's what I've understood 8)

    Looking at the pictures that another friend posted, I'll have to reconsider buying NOW a HD camera, I also have children and they're the main reason for my video stuff now;

    Thanks,

    Zetti


    Originally Posted by filmboss80
    Wow, I'm surprised you would go with AVCHD after all the info that's been given. It will take additional expenses beside the camcorder alone to work with that format. You'll need a new computer, new software, etc. AVC-Intra is an emerging pro format that will cost big bucks.

    The death of HDV is not as imminent as you may think. Further development of AVCHD-friendly editing software may slow with the economy.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by filmboss80
    Indeed, AVCHD is not a pro format. The emerging AVC-Intra variation, however, is a different beast that Panasonic is trying to promote as a "pro" format. Waste of time, methinks.
    AVC-Intra is a challenger to replace HDCAM. Like 10 bit 1440x1080 3:1:1 144Mb/s HDCAM, AVC-Intra records separate frames but is 1920x1080 8/10bit 4:2:2. The main difference is using h.264 for intraframe compression to get the lower bit rates (50Mb/s or 100Mb/s).

    Panasonic's FAQ for AVC-Intra details all the deficiencies of AVCHD as a pro format.
    ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/AVCIntra%20FAQs.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVC-Intra

    HDCAM is the broadcast high end transition standard but is getting long in the tooth and needs replacement. The main advantage for HDCAM was compatibility with SD SMPTE 259M SDI infrastructure.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti
    Hi,

    Well, I'll need a new computer anyway, regardless footage stuff, and with Neoscene things may not go so bad.
    Considering all the information that's been given, I realized that HDV is more or less mature already, and AVCHD is a young baby....
    If you look at HDV as a form of XDCAM-EX, then it is not in danger of obsolescence. MPeg2 will have a long life for Prosumer and Broadcast acquisition.

    AVCHD+digital intermediate (e.g. Neo Scene, Apple Intermediate Codec, etc.) is an acceptable consumer solution but AVCHD is not likely to be accepted as a pro format. It depends whether you need to interact with the pro community.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member tmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I am greatly enjoying learning so much from this post, and I hope this doesn't taking things off track. But, why do so many formats use 3/4 horizontal scaling (e.g. recording 960x720 instead of 1280x720 and 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080) even in pro versions?

    Some recent AVCHD camcorders (e.g. Canon HF-10) stopped the practice, but I was surprised that AVC-Intra 50 still does use 3/4 horizontal scaling, like HDV.

    Looking forward, do you think this horizontal scaling will continue to occur? Or is that largely a relic of the past? Would horizontal scaling affect your HD camcorder purchase decision?
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    1440x1080 is an HDV standard, hence the various companies who record in that manner.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV


    Would I make a decision to buy a camcorder which shoots at full 1920x1080 rather than 1440x1080? It depends on the camera. There's only 1 or 2 HDV camcorders which shoot in full 1920x1080 - JVC makes them. The newer AVCHD cameras have full 1920x1080 ability, but you have to deal with the other hassles of working with AVCHD data.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!